Commonwealth of Massachusetts

The Trial Court

Worcester, ss. Superior Court Departmsesnt
Worcester Division

_____________________________
)
Scott Lively, and )
Committee to Elect Scott Lively )
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) DOCKET NO. 18
)
Massachusetts Republican Party, )
Massachusetts Republican )
State Committee, )
Charles D. Baker, )
Baker Committee, )
Kirsten Hughes. )
Matthew St. Hillaire, )
Bradley Jones Jr., )
Kevin McNamara, and )
Does 1-25, )
Defendants )
______________________________)

COMPLAINT

Introduction

1. This is a complaint for compensatory and punitive damages by Scott Lively, a Republican

candidate for governor of Massachusetts, against the Massachusetts Republican party, its

state committee, and various executives and representatives of that party.

2. The State Committee of the Massachusetts Republican party violated its own By-Laws

which prohibit the Committee or its employees from giving an endorsement or financial

help to any candidate running in a primary, by endorsing Charles Baker for governor and

by assisting him to get ballot signatures and do fund-raising.

Page -1-
3. Once this violation was discovered, the Republican State Committee passed a resolution

changing the by-laws to prohibit the party from giving Lively any assistance, based on his

political and religious beliefs, while authorizing expenditures for Charles Baker.

4. Lively’s beliefs are fully within the mainstream of the Republican Party, whose national

platform “condemns” the Obergefell v. Hodges gay marriage ruling as unlawful, and

asserts “the sanctity of human life and affirm[s] that the unborn child has a fundamental

right to life which cannot be infringed.”

5. Defendant Baker has publicly condemned Lively for adhering to the Republican Platform,

stating that there is no place “in any life” for these beliefs.

6. Defendant Brad Jones has stated that Lively’s traditional pro-life and pro-family beliefs,

as expressed in the Republican Platform, are “violent and extremist.”

7. The defendants herein are at odds with the tolerance demanded by their own Republican

Party platform, which opposes, “any restrictions or conditions that would discourage

citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their

ideas.. . .”

8. This complaint seeks damages for the conspiracy amongst the defendants to violate the

Republican By-Laws, to interfere with Lively’s campaign, to commit unfair and deceptive

trade practices, and to interfere with his right to equal protection of his religious beliefs.

9. The Massachusetts Republican State Committee was sued in 2014 by Mark Fisher for

violating the party by-laws and convention rules to keep him off the ballot, and it paid out

over $400,000 in damages and attorneys fees to Mr. Fisher in settlement.

10. Because the Baker campaign and its fellow conspirators were well aware of the by-law

restriction to not endorse a candidate or favor a particular primary campaign with

Page -2-
 resources, this complaint seeks punitive damages in the amount of seven million dollars

($7,000.000.00), the amount the Baker campaign held at the time of the violation.

Parties

11. Plaintiff, Scott Lively, (“Lively”) is a natural person with a domicile in Worcester,

Massachusetts. He was, at all relevant times, a Republican candidate for the office of

governor of Massachusetts.

12. Plaintiff, Committee to Elect Scott Lively, (“Lively Committee”) is a duly formed

campaign committee, registered with the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political

Finance, with a principal place of business in Holyoke, Massachusetts.

13. Defendant Massachusetts Republican Party (“MassGOP”) is a political party and legal

entity, duly existing under M.G.L. c. 50, § 1, with a principal place of business in Boston,

Massachusetts.

14. Defendant Massachusetts Republican State Committee (“State Committee”) is the

governing body of the Republican Party in Massachusetts, authorized under M.G.L. c. 52,

§ 1, with a principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts.

15. Defendant Charles D. Baker (“Baker”), is the Republican governor of the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, and a candidate for re-election to the office of governor as a

Republican in the 2018 election, with a domicile in Swampscott, Massachusetts, and a

business address of the State House, Boston, Massachusetts.

16. Defendant, Baker Committee, is a duly formed campaign committee, registered with the

Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, with a principal place of

business in Beverly, Massachusetts.

Page -3-
17. Defendant Kirsten Hughes (“Hughes”), is the chairman of the Massachusetts Republican

Party and chairman of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee, with a principal

place of Business at Boston, Massachusetts.

18. Defendant Matthew St. Hillaire (“St. Hillaire”) is the Executive Director of the

Massachusetts Republican State Committee, with a principal place of business in Boston,

Massachusetts.

19. Defendant Bradley Jones Jr. (“Jones”) is a member of the Massachusetts Republican State

Committee, a duly elected representative to the General Court of Massachusetts, and

House Republican (minority) leader, with a domicile in North Reading, Massachusetts.

20. Defendant Kevin McNamara (“McNamara”) was, at all pertinent times, an employee of

the Massachusetts Republican State Committee.

21. Does 1-25 are as-yet-unknown defendants who have damaged plaintiffs and deprived

Plaintiff Lively of rights under the laws and Constitution of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, including individual members of Defendant Republican State Committee

who conspired to violate Lively’s rights. Their identity will be obtained through

discovery.

Factual Allegations

22. On or about November 30, 2017, Scott Lively filed a form with the Massachusetts Office

of Campaign and Political Finance to create the “Committee to Elect Scott Lively”, which

officially allowed him to begin his candidacy for governor of the Commonwealth.

23. Thereafter, Lively began to campaign by attending events, contacting potential

supporters, raising funds, and contacting local Republican Committees.

Page -4-
24. A candidate for governor must obtain 10,000 signatures of registered voters in order to be

nominated and placed on the primary ballot for the office.

25. One of the main methods for a candidate to obtain signatures is through involvement with

local town Republican committees.

26. The By-laws of the Republican State Committee (“By-laws”), Art. IV, Section 7 states:

Unless approved by two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the entire Executive Committee,
neither the State Chair nor any person employed by the State Committee, shall assist, aid,
or publicly endorse any candidate in favor of another candidate in either a contested
Republican primary of in any contested election for office within the State Committee.
Violation of this section shall constitute grounds for removal of the State Chair or
employee.

27. Sometime in February of 2018, prior to the primary election, at least one employee of the

state party, Defendant Kevin McNamara, along with other yet-unknown persons affiliated

with the MassGOP and the State Committee, began to set up outings around the state to

gather signatures for the campaign of defendant Charles Baker.

28. On information and belief, these activities by agents of the State Committee to endorse

and work for Defendant Baker prior to the primary election were undertaken with the

approval and involvement of defendants Hughes, St. Hillaire and Baker, and certain

members of the State Committee.

29. On information and belief, the State Committee expended funds on behalf of Baker and

the Baker Committee to assist in gathering signatures, setting up meetings, setting up

fundraisers, obtaining support from local Republican Committees, and obtaining

endorsements of various politicians and supporters.

30. These endorsement and signature gathering activities by the State Committee on behalf of

Baker had the effect of shutting out Lively from obtaining signatures from many venues,

Page -5-
 as the MassGOP was seen as already endorsing Baker.

31. These activities of endorsement and signature gathering by the State Committee for Baker

required the plaintiffs to expend their own funds to gather signatures and raise support,

while Baker was able to use money from the MassGOP and/or the State Committee.

32. On January 19, 2018, Defendant St. Hillaire had assured Lively in person that the

MassGOP would maintain scrupulous neutrality in the primary election, per the party By-

Laws.

33. The defendants, acting in unity, had the ability to favor the Baker candidacy and to

deprive the Lively candidacy of help, organization, fund raising, endorsements, assistance

in gathering signatures, local party assistance and much else, in violation of the State

Committee By-Laws.

34. Each defendant agreed with and endorsed the common scheme engaged in by the

defendants to not comply with the state committee By-Laws by endorsing Baker and by

giving him financial and other assistance personally and through the State Committee,

and by depriving Lively of the same endorsement and assistance.

35. Other unknown persons on the State Committee and unknown employees of the State

Committee also agreed with and participated in the endorsement of and assistance to

Baker and the Baker Committee in violation of the State Committee By-Laws.

36. On or about February 14, 2018, after discovering that the State Committee and MassGOP

had endorsed Baker and assisted Baker and the Baker Committee, Plaintiff Lively wrote

to defendant St. Hillaire and demanded that the Party’s collusion with the Baker

campaign cease, that the Party compensate him and his campaign for its financial

expenses and losses due to that violation, and that the party require accountability for the

Page -6-
 perpetrators of this violation.

37. On or about February 17, 2018, Defendant Jones, a member of the State Committee,

wrote to his fellow State Committee members in a letter stating:

It sickens me to think that we would be extorted into putting our Party’s resources
- and, more importantly, the credibility of our institution, our elected officials, and
our candidates - behind someone who appeared in a state-owned Russian TV
propaganda video, claims that the Holocaust was perpetrated by homosexuals, and
is credited with inspiring Ugandan laws that made homosexuality a crime
punishable by death.

38. In his February 17 letter, Jones further elaborated:

On this point, let’s be very clear; this is not about differences of opinion on certain
social issues. Mr. Lively’s rhetoric and record are not socially conservative. They
are violent and extremist.

39. The statements by Jones cited above about Lively are false.

40. Lively immediately wrote Mr. Jones, and demanded that he retract these false statements.

41. Jones has not retracted his false public statements about Lively.

42. On or about February 20. 2018, the State Committee voted to change the By-Laws to

allow the party to endorse and assist Baker and the Baker Committee.

43. On the same date, the State Committee voted to prohibit any assistance to Lively, based

on his religious and political beliefs.

44. Lively’s beliefs are virtually identical with those set out in the National Republican

Platform, including that homosexual marriage should be condemned, that the Supreme

Court ruled wrongly on homosexual marriage, that marriage is between one man and one

woman, that unborn children have a right to life, that Planned Parenthood should be de-

funded, that we should be tolerant of the free speech of those whose beliefs are different,

and that the president of the United States, a member of the Republican Party, should be

Page -7-
 supported.

45. The MassGOP held its state convention on April 28, 2018 at the DCU Center in

Worcester.

46. In order for a candidate to obtain a place on the Republican Party primary ballot, the

candidate must obtain the vote of 15% of the delegates to the state convention.

47. Defendant Hughes, along with other defendants, attempted to change the rules of the

convention to use paper ballots rather than the electronic voting required by the rules, in

order to control the paper ballots and potentially deprive Lively of a place on the primary

election ballot.

48. At the state convention, Lively obtained votes of nearly 28% of the delegates.

49. On information and belief, Lively received more votes that the official tally would show,

due to machinations by the defendants.

50. After the convention, Baker stated publicly that:

"There’s no place and no point in public life, in any life, for a lot of the things
Scott Lively says and believes."

51. By this statement, Baker, as head of the executive branch of government in

Massachusetts, and the titular head of the Massachusetts Republican Party, attempted to

exclude and to persuade others to exclude Lively from his right to free speech and from

participation in the party due to his religious beliefs.

52. Following the state convention, the Lively Committee obtained and submitted in excess

of the requisite 10,000 signatures to various city and town clerks.

53. During the previous Republican state convention in 2014, Baker associates, defendant

Hughes, and other party insiders kept a candidate, Mark Fisher, from obtaining the 15%

convention endorsement, by violation of party rules in the way it counted blank ballots.

Page -8-
54. Fisher had obtained just over 15% of the convention votes per the convention rules. The

State Committee then did a re-count, including blank ballots in the total, in violation of

the convention rules, which resulted in a vote for Mr. Fisher of just under 15%, thus

excluding him from the primary ballot.

55. This maneuver left Baker as the only Republican candidate for governor in 2014.

56. Mr. Fisher brought a civil action against the Mass State Committee and other defendants

herein for damages, (Suffolk Superior Court Docket No. SUCV2014-01072-A), which

was eventually settled in Mr. Fisher’s favor for about $450,000, including attorneys fees.

57. The defendants were thus on notice that breaking the rules of the party in order to favor

one candidate over another was not legally acceptable.

Count I

Breach of Contract - All Defendants

58. All factual allegations set forth above are incorporated into this count.

59. The By-Laws of the State Committee constitute a contract between the State Committee

and the members of the party and its potential candidates.

60. The defendants breached their contract with the plaintiffs when they endorsed Baker for

governor, provided financial assistance to Baker, supported his signature gathering effort

during the primary election period, as well as gave him other assistance.

61. These actions by the defendants damaged the Plaintiffs financially, by requiring plaintiffs

to expend funds to a) obtain signatures; b) obtain support for the convention vote; c) raise

support at local city and town committees d) advertise his candidacy; and e generally

counter the actions and endorsement of Baker by defendants.

Page -9-
 Count II

Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations - All Defendants

62. All factual allegations set forth above are incorporated into this count.

63. Defendants interfered with the plaintiffs’ contractual relations with the party and its local

affiliates by endorsing Baker during the primary campaign and assisting him with

personnel and financial assistance in violation of its By-Laws, and by making defamatory

statements about Lively.

64. Defendants’ actions were done intentionally, in order to deprive Lively of a place on the

Republican primary ballot, to dampen his delegate totals at the convention, to inhibit

gathering of signatures and make it more costly, and to make fund raising more difficult.

65. The plaintiffs have been damaged by the defendants’ actions as set out above.

Count III

Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (M.G.L. c. 93A, § 11) -

Defendants MassGOP and State Committee Only

66. All factual allegations set forth above are incorporated into this count.

67. At all pertinent times, defendants MassGOP and the State Committee were engaging in

trade or commerce.

68. The defendants’ actions in endorsing Baker, assisting Baker’s campaign to gather

signatures, doing fund raising during the primary campaign, and other actions to assist

Baker, in violation of its By-Laws, is an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

69. When spokesmen for the defendants MassGOP and the State Committee, such as

defendants Jones and Baker, made false statements in public about Lively, in order to

harm his candidacy, this was an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

Page -10-
70. The defendants’ actions and statements by its agents were willful and wanton and done in

bad faith with malice.

71. The actions of the defendants violated M.G.L. c. 93A, § 11.

72. The Plaintiffs were damaged by loss of reputation, for expenditures to obtain signatures

and to obtain support for the convention vote, by dampened fundraising efforts, and by

investment of time and money to counter the actions of defendants, all as set out above.

Count IV

Defamation - Lively v. Defendants Jones and Baker

73. All factual allegations set forth above are incorporated into this count.

74. The defendants Jones and Baker published oral defamatory statements about the plaintiff

Lively as set out in Paragraphs 37-38 and 50 above, which were then republished and

reported in various mass media outlets throughout the state.

75. The statements by the defendants were materially false statements of fact.

76. The defendants acted with actual malice, in order to harm Lively’s candidacy.

77. The statements by defendants were slander per se, as the words used by the defendants

charged the plaintiff with being “violent”, and prejudiced him in his office, profession,

and business.

78. The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the defamatory publication, including loss of

reputation and economic losses as set out above.

Page -11-
 Count V

Mass. Equal Rights Act (M.G.L. c. 93. § 102) All Defendants

79. All factual allegations set forth above are incorporated into this count.

80. The defendants have, through their actions and through their statements, discriminated

against Lively based on his religious creed.

81. Defendant Baker illustrated the discrimination by his statement, "There’s no place and no

point in public life, in any life, for a lot of the things Scott Lively says and believes."

82. The State Committee has voted to not allow any MassGOP or State Committee support to

the plaintiffs due to Lively’s religious creed.

83. The Plaintiffs have been damaged by loss of reputation, for expenditures to obtain

signatures and to obtain support for the convention vote, by dampened fundraising

efforts, and by investment of time and money to counter the actions of defendants, all as

set out above.

Count VI

Civil Conspiracy - All Defendants

84. All factual allegations set forth above are incorporated into this count.

85. The defendants agreed to act together to intentionally interfere with his contractual

relations with the party, as set out above.

86. The defendants agreed to act together to commit unfair and deceptive trade practices

against Lively, as set out above.

87. The defendants agreed to act together to deprive Lively of the right to hold and express

his religious beliefs.

Page -12-
88. The defendants intended to deprive Lively of the legal rights enumerated above.

89. The defendants, acting in concert, had the peculiar power of coercion to deprive Lively of

the rights enumerated above, that they would not have had if they acted independently.

90. Plaintiffs were damaged as set out above.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court issue a judgment for the

following relief:

A. A judgment for money damages against each defendant in amounts to be proved at trial

for breach of contract and for intentional interference with contractual relations;

B. A judgment for money damages against defendants Baker and Jones for defamation;

C. A judgment for money damages against defendants MassGOP and the State Committee

for committing unfair and deceptive trade practices, multiplied due to the Defendants’

willful and malicious violation of M.G.L. c. 93A.

D. A judgment for money damages against all defendants for violation of the Plaintiff’s

equal rights under M.G.L. c. 93, § 102, and punitive damages in the amount of

$7,000,000.00;

E. A judgment for money damages against all defendants for their conspiracy in interfering

with the plaintiffs’ contractual relations, conspiracy of committing unfair and deceptive

trade practices, and conspiracy to deprive Lively of his protected equal rights.

F. Removal of all officials of the MassGOP and the State Committee who violated Art. IV,

Section 7 of the State Committee By-Laws, by endorsing, providing money for, or

services for Defendant Baker prior to changing the By-Law on February 20, 2018.

Page -13-
G. An award of costs.

H. An award of attorneys fees for deprivation of equal rights and committing unfair and

deceptive trade practices.

I. Any other relief that the court deems just.

The Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all counts which may be tried to a jury.

Respectfully Submitted,
The Plaintiffs
By counsel,

________________________
Dated: May 31, 2018 Gregory A. Hession, J. D.
93 Summer Street
P.O. Box 543
Thorndike, MA 01079
telephone: (413) 289-9164
BBO No. 564457
hession@crocker.com

Page -14-